tv After Words with Bill Gertz CSPAN April 16, 2017 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
educated at uva and students from all around to world are being educated at uv and yet there's still a great deal about his original vision that has survived, and i think that is probably as astonishing as anything. treatment and. >> up next, bill gertz examines how modern warfare has einvolved with the introduction of new technology and what the u.s. has
to do be successful. he is interviewed by congress mom elysee stefanik, chair of the armed services committee on emerging threats and capabilities. >> bill gertz, i'm excited to be with you today to discuss this book "iwar." you're the national security columnist for the "washington times" and the senior editor the "washington free beacon" and you talk about how this as a culmination of your experience following national security. why did you publish this back. >> guest: it's the new form of warfare that is emerging in the 201st center, iwar. i've covered national security affairs for over 30 years. been all over the world, covering these issues, and i
think it's a reflection of the information age that we're now looking at this new form of warfare, which i call information warfare, and i define that as beth the technical -- both the technical cyber we have seen so much of in terms of cyber attack from the russians and chinese, as well as the content influence type of thing, and which really emerged in the last presidential election with the russian -- what's been called the cyber enabled influence operation. so these two thing is believe are going to be the dominant form of warfare, just as information is really dominating our lives, so, too, in the realm of conflict we'll see that in our adversaries are looking into this, looking as a cheap way to achieve strategic goals, without resorting to kinetic military conflict which is expensive and costly in both terms of resources and lives. >> host: so you bring up a good point.
you talk about how society typically when they think about warfare, the think of it in kinetic terms. soldiers, arms, bombs, land, and this discusses nonkinetic farms of warfare in the digital realm. do you think the media and society as a whole has an an awareness of the importance of information warfare and the use of media and influence campaigns or is part of the goal of the back to raise awareness among the public? >> guest: yeah. the simple answer is, no. this is the point i make in the book, that we're under an information assault, and americans are largely in the dark. that includes our government as well as the public at large, and as you might recall in a recent hearing that you were the chair of, one of the witnesses testified about the russian propaganda outlet r.t. and an official from r.t. told him that r.t. would have no audience in the united states if the u.s.
media were doing its job properly. so in a sense what has traditionally been the rolled of the american media, to provide both education and information, has fallen off. right now sear see a vulcanization and o'politicization of the media into different camps and they're not presenting the kind of news on international affairs and especially about our enemies. one thing i have always tried to do in my journalism career as well as my career as an author, is to highlight threats, and the reason i do that is because if people don't have an understanding of the threat, then there's really -- it's really difficult to get the tools and the resources necessary to deal with the problem. and so, again, this is a threat book. it deals with the main threats of information warfare and it tries to show that this is a
serious, strategic threat to the united states, across a broad spectrum of areas, from international affairs to domestic affairs. >> host: so you talk about the increase of information operations and information warfare as a strategic threat to the united states, and one interesting part of this discussion that i think needs to be covered is the use of social media, and you talk about that in the book. facebook users, you actually include this statistic, host approximately 4.75 billion pieces of content every day. so there is a lot of information out there. there's a proliferation of information as we see in our facebook feeds, on twitter, instagram, snapchat you choose media. and you talk about the islamic state's use of social media. you say, i quote, a distinct feature of isis' media separation is the agility and
ability to respond quickly to events, outperforming stayed mia in the miami. enabled by the group residents use of social media and a network of dedicated online supportersers who amply fly the stahmic state's message. what should the u.s. do to combat that? >> guest: it's real challenge. i pointed out in the book that there's a kind of a conflicting approach to this problem. on the one hand there's pressure from the u.s. government to shut down the terrorist's use of social media. on the other hand there's an intelligence need to fine another what they're doing so this is a real challenge. how to balance these two competing needs. obviously monitoring social media, much of which is open source, can produce valuable intelligence, especially about people who are going perpetrate attacks, and this is really the problem that needs to be solved. i make the case that social
media is being weaponnized, and we need to figure out ways to be able to have the same kind of agility that the terrorists demonstrated. they will shut down twitter feeds or facebook sites from terrorists that are known to be using tis to pron goo da -- propagandize and recruit and then they can set up new communications channels quickly. so it's a whack-a-mole where you knock one site down and immediately they have three or four others to use. now they're getting even more sophisticated and going to encrypted communications. we saw this in the recent case of the terrorist in london who ran his -- rammed a number of pedestrians on the bridge, he was using telegram, a key to the russian software allowing
terrorists to communicate in much her to difficult ways waysr intelligence agencies in the west detect them. >> host: does u.s. law enforcement and as policymaker do we haves a an quit strategy ourselves to effect if therely use social media to combat misinformation with the truth and make sure that potential rerecruits of isis actually see information that we want them to see, calling into question that this is not the proper interpretation of islam. >> guest: i look at that in iwar and i found the main tool for this is a state department center for strategic counterterrorism communication. spoke to a number of officials while researching the book and all of them agree they have real challenge, and the challenge is they're not allowed to address the topic of islam itself.
they've adopted under the obama administration and of course the trump administration is changing this now. they're talking openly about radical islamic terrorism. in the past it was violent extremism, and i argue that this has really made it very, very difficult for us to do counter-ideological operations. the state department did a stu and the study was based on some experts -- it's a classified study. they wouldn't release it but it has been reported on in the press and the study says that because the u.s. government has no credibility, it shouldn't even attempt to try and do counterpropaganda efforts against isil and these terrorist groups online. and that to me is a totally defeatist approach. you'll never succeed if you don't even try, and there are some new efforts, just in december, the latest congressional defense bill contained a new provision that is calling for
counter-disinformation and propaganda, which is mostly targeted against russia but it needs to be much broader, more targeted against all of these main adversaries and the adversaries have -- the military love their acronyms. they have aning a decree him in for i would call the contradict it which appeareds store china, rich, iran, korea, and terrorism. and so that's are the main threats that we need to address and i'm hoping that under the trump administration they will get more efforts, both resources people and leadership, to tackle these tough problems. >> one of the most impressive parts of the book is you look at different case studies of different countries. ju just systemed china, russia, north korea, iran, isis and the islamic state. want to delve into example wes have seen of the use of information warfare by the
countries. the first one is north korea. the general public is well aware of the sony hack because it got so much media coverage. that's of course the hack in response to the movie of the interview. why was this such a significant event when it comes to information warfare? you spend a lot of time talking about this. >> guest: i do a deep dive on the sony hack which took place in 2014, and it was based on the north korean government's recognition that they were really opposed to this movie "the interview" what i call comedy -- not that good of a movie but an importanting in in exposing the problems that north korea poses. north korea needs to be understood dish don't think lot of people understand this -- this is a really crimes against humanity regime. u.n. hum rights commissions have supposed that.
they've identified it, and yet here we are in to 21st century and we are still dealing dealinh this regime that does here el, unspeakable things to its people. the sony hack was the first time that a government had attacked a private industry for political gain, and so the sony pictures -- they went in, they took information which was extremely damaging to the company, as well as they conducted a damaging attack. in other words, the software used actually destroyed the entire networks of these people. it's kind of a harbinger of things to come. for research nor book i actually interviewed a north korean defector, named kim quonk, and he actually trained hackers in north korea, and he issued a dire warning. he said the u.s. and the west should definitely take this threat serious.
what they're going for ultimately is u.s. infrastructure. the ability to turn out the lights, to damage our infrastructure, and prevent us from operating as a western society, and of course, everyone recognizes that the u.s. is probably the most wired country in the world, everything is networked, and so if you attack that infrastructure, you could cause strategic damage to the united states and that is the real danger. now, the north koreans are building on that capability. they're still considered a second tier threat to the russians in the chinese. >> in term. >> host: in terms of north korea you're critical of the u.s.' lack of response to the sony hack. can you unpack that a little bit more so viewers understand what the u.s. did after the sony attack and if there were missed opportunities? >> guest: yes. think covering this issue for a long time and as far back as 2011 i learned from intelligence sources in the u.s. government
that senior officials of all the major agencies, the intelligent community, pentagon, law enforcement, had presented a series of options to the obama white house, and these options were -- basically they were saying, we are under attack from these various places, cyber attacks and others, and unless we do something in a very real way, these attacks are going to continue and so they presented a range of options, ranging from imposing sanctions on the offending entities, whether that was government officials or hackers, all the way to conducting offensive counter-cyber attack that would actually go in and damage some of the infrastructure of these organizations. say, the chinese unit that linked to the office of personnel management hack or the russians. the white house rejected all options so there hasn't been anything done. in the case of sony, they made
some symbolic sanctions against the north korean officials that really would have no impact. it was things like blocking them from entering the united states or blocking them from access to internet financial system. well those are okay measures, they weren't enough to really make an impact, and as a result we have seen kind of an escalating scale of cyber' influence operations. it's getting worse and it's not getting better. the reason is there needs to be a greater response. admiral mike rogers, the current national security agency chief, has been one of the strongest advocates for tougher deterrence response, in other words, he has been advocate that the cost of entry into the realm of information warfare, whether psychber or i plan to, it's so low because out irresist able for our enemies so if there's a great are cost that will have a deterrent affect and say if you
attack the united states you'll be attacked back. that will change the equation. >> host: i think the sony hack highlights an important question for policymakers that we're certainly grappling with. because sony is a nongovernment agency what role should the department of defense play when we are discussing admiral rogers -- the role in combatingg and making sure we're sharing information with nongovernmental organizations that of cyber threats out there. >> guest: that's the problem. the lines of authority that allow the government to be able to do things are very blurred. they're muddled and not clear and the problem is most of the infrastructure is in private hands, private companies, also, are in charge of their own security. the government has a great resource of security abilities, and they're kind of constrained from using it.
there's a lot of reasons for that. some are political. we saw the snowden disclose showers turned against the national security agency which to me is the premier agency for cyber security. other intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the pentagon have good camables to counter -- capabilities to counter this but they're con trained by law and regulation about what they can do. that is why i think we really need kind of a new entity. i call it information america where we would set up something that would be similar to the u.s. information agency of the cold war era, and that would transcend various agencies but a if it's part of the defense department, information warfare would be subordinated to kinetic military, support function. if it's interest intelligence community, it would be imposed by heavy secrecy which there is culture.
if it's in the state department it would be what i call diplomacy impaired. this state department is oriented towards getting along with foreign nations. so we had an individual agency that could do this it would help clarify the lines of authority and could be, again, both a contend counter and promotion thing as well as technical and cyber to be able to cross over these two things and perhaps interact wetter with the private sector. >> so that was an interesting proposal that i'll get to the end of our interview itch want to highlight other countries who have utilized information warfare. you talked about north korea as being in the tier two. let's move to tier one actors. when it comes to information warfare. china, and one of the examples that you touch upon -- let me find the quote -- you write: no other nation today poses a
greater danger american national security than china, a state engaged in an unprecedented campaign of information warfare using both massive cyber attacks and influence places aimed at dem diminishing the importance of the u.s.: i served in the administration under president george w. bush i was an individual that got the notification that my information was part of the opm hacking. why was that such a significant event? that's my first question. and second talk about china's broader capabilities and howl they differ from tier two. >> guest: sure. this chinese recognized early on that they do not have the physical military capabilities to challenge the united states, and right now china is challenging the united states in regard to the united states as
its main enemy. the u.s.es has self-dilute it itself that shawne is a normal nation when fact is a nuclear armed communist dictatorship. that is often lost in the debate over communicate i've been covering that issue for over 30 years. the problem is the chinese -- they are -- everyone talks about china's rise, but what is also -- what the chinese are also doing is trying to manage the decline of the united states. they have what they regard as the declinist theory of the united states. they see the united states as a diminishing party -- power and they're a rising car and they're working to dem minimum -- dem minimummish the united states. they owe pm hack was unique in that 22 million federal records were attacked. but that was just like --
actually one element of this broad thing that had been going on for at least a decade, and the intelligence community had a code name for it, called byzantine haiti where they had sim systematically broken it, bite a cyber espionage, cyber intelligence operation, and the stole records which included some of the most sensitive information that you could possibly have in the u.s. government, things about security clearances, things about relatives and neighbors who were questioned about someone getting a security clearance. this information is extremely valuable for further cyber attacks. what the chinese can do with that information is sift it using data-mining tools and then be able to identify, say, a systems administrator inside a defense contractor and with other intelligence they could
target that official, learn his passwood credentials and use that to gain access to further information operations. a lot of times these attacks have been kind of diminished as somehow this is just intel against gathering but that's a real misnomer. these are attacks, and the reason you can't say that it's just simple intelligence gathering is because there are two things that happen when the chinese get inside a network like the office of person mel management. one, they steal massive amounts of dat dark but, two -- a little known fact -- they plant something called sleeper agent software. that is software that communicates with beijing but is almost impossible to detect. it may be communicates back once a year and mixed in with the software of the ones and zeros that make up the millions of lines of code. so this is the real problem. in a crisis they could use that software to shut done networks
or do other damage or sabotage efforts. that's i would we're having trouble with the term nothing. just cyber intelligence or cyber sabotage. it's a combination of both, i argue. >> host: one statistic that is astoundsening when it read it in firms of the amount of data that the chinese cyber spies have stolen, the nsa estimated the amount of data stolen by chinese cyber spies amounts to an extraordinary 50 at the terabytes of data. all the information in the 161 million books and other printed materials held by the library of congress. that's astounding. that demonstrates how much of a threat this truly and is how far behind the united states is and how we need to ensure we have strategy to combat this cyber warfare.
>> guest: the use of the data is critical. i interviewed a person from dat mining company in the u.s., tom riley and he said that in china there are 60,000 dat mining companies emerging so it's not just that they're stealing data but they're having the able to commit -- to manipulate and mine that dat to for intelligence and conduct future cyber operations. >> host: another tier one actor is russia, which you spend a fair amount of time on in the book as well. and my committee in congress has also spent a great deal of time on. can you give the viewers a sense of the scale, size, and scope of russia's use of information ware fair because it is significant. >> guest: just last week i went to a conference where the deputy director of the national security agency, rick leggett, was giving a speech and afterward its said, i heard that a number of years ago the
director of national intelligence said that russia had eclipsed china as the major threat in the cyber realm and i asked leggett, who is the bigger threat, russia or china? and he said russia. asked why and he said he wouldn't tell me. the reason is that the russians are building their cyber capables and their influence capabilities on their soviet past. again, as a major nuclear power, they had a tremendous technology base, and a lot of those technologists that were involved in the soviet defense industry have emerged as key player thursday the cyber realm and it's a combination of both the private sector as well as the intelligence services are going great guns in using these cybercapables against, again, what they see as their main threat. under putin they've identified
the used as their main enemy, something that putin is using to whip up nationalist historia and support at home and they have conduct it some extremely damaging cyber operations and more of those are coming known as recently as two weeks ago there was a --en indictment again two russian hacker and two intelligence officers who were involved in the yahoo! attack. >> host: i know we have spoken a a lot about cyber warfare but the case of russia allows to us influence information operations and information warfare and the specific manipulation of the media, and i wanted to quote general -- the chief of the general staff in russian federation: in 2013 he said this: very rules of war have changed. the role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals a grown and they
have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness. i think if we're looking at russia's increasing influence when it comes to undermining our nato allies we see a unique way they're use information warfare. we talk about that in terms of the operations in the ukraine and the crimea specifically? those are unique cases hey information war warfare has been used by russia. >> guest: the russian threat is extremely dangerous and i don't use that term lightly. i've been covering national security a long time if don't scare easily but the thing that have happened in russia over the last several years have frightened me about concern about what is happening there i would point to two things. one, they're ear merging cyber warfare and influence operations, but behind the scene is also their nuclear development, and in addition to
developing new nuclear weapons and modernizing across the range of systems, missiles, bombers, submarines and developing even small nuclear weapons that are actually usable in a conflict. this is -- i mention in the book that the pentagon did a study of their -- what they call low yield nuclear weapons if the russians changed the tactics to the point where they have this policy called, escalate to de-escalate. they will rapidliy a nuclear weapon in a regional conflict because their conventional forces have become so weak and outmoded they need nuclear weapons. so when you combine that's, this hair trigger on the universe nuclear weapons with the use of information war fire achieve strategic end you have a very dangerous situation. related to the crimea that was a case study in what has been known as hybrid warfare. they took over this industrial region of ukraine, without
firing a shot, and they used special forces troops without insignia, which became known asle green men. they were also using influence operations to put forth false narratives that this part of ukraine was actually belongs to russia,ed had a large russian -- and had demonstrations that people in crimea wanted the the russians to invade and over the industrial heartland. this is a wakeup call to the west. as far as the russian ideology goes i looked at what is motivated vladimir putin to do these things. he is kind of adopted a nationalist, neofascist approach. called the collapse of the soviet union the biggest catastrophe on russia and is
bent on rebound establishing a russia supremacist state that he says will stretch from the pacific to the atlantic and will crawl all control all over the s including the arctic. this is a very dangerous situation in which we have seen the russians enorth american and a regime who has designs on taking over nations. the apologyeyes, the propaganda outlets for russia have dismissedded this by saying what a little section of a country like crimea? if we learned anything from the last century before this one, it's that if aggression is a allowed to proceed unchecked it leads to very, very bad things and that's where we are now. unless this aggression by russia is reversed we'll see more problems with russia down the road. >> host: when it comes to the
crimea we saw how effective this would in terms of shaping media coverage. ... >> >> is a real challenge dealing with the press today the news media is in turmoil. you can find that newspapers have a huge profit margin when they were print advertising and now struggling to survive setting up payroll but as i mentioned it is a certain political station of the of ebs and as we say the
liberal media is dominated by the three issues of gender identity racism and global warming of the conservative side you have a focus on security issues like immigration domestic and more concerns about government overreach. these two issues create the division within hours society if you watch the new -- the network news it is incredibly biased it is so obvious that people did not get a real sense a lot of coverage overseas unless there is a major event like a terrorist attack we're not covering overseas or the threats it is to identify the threats the other thing is the of liberal media today there is a post modern philosophy that the only
real threat is from the terrorist on the fringe of course our enemies don't agree at all to understand these threats. >> host: another notable act is the fact the russians conducted the first attack against of power grid military annotation demonstrated they are leading the way with cyberattacks against a foreign nation intellectual power grid that turned out the lights for tens of thousands of ukrainians. from my perspective that is deeply concerning to have that critical infrastructure around the world or the u.s. . what potential threat does that pose for us and what can we do to ensure we have those defense measures in
place? >> it is a huge problem u.s. intelligence has already detected russian and chinese cyberintruders getting into the networks of the electrical grid what does that mean? they're doing reconnaissance in a future crisis they could shut down the power and to present a fictional scenario in the china chapter as the result of the of crisis in the south china sea were a plane sinks a warship and rather than conducting a counter-attack they dispatch covert
commandos to pennsylvania where the day make it look like a natural disaster then use cyberattacks with that cascading power failure over the u.s. electrical grid. that is what people were worried about. the steps better taken to strengthen against those attacks will not be easy. did has been shown you can cause a transformer to rick's blood replacing large transformers is costly and will take a long time. because they are made in germany yourself correa. this -- or south korea. we need a comprehensive
approach so talk about critical and restructure but everything run on electricity that should be our top priority is our electrical grid another country is iran. what type of threats does that face with information warfare? >> they're definitely the emerging power and what i highlight in the chapter in the day have gone from low-level if basement to cyberespionage to denial of service escalating to the upper tier to have the ability to create damage and also focus on the case of
the hacking on the assyrians casino in las vegas that was very sophisticated aimed against the casino owner who made comments about iran they basically shut down or damaged his casino. but more recently we see the iranians venturing into infrastructure there is a damn in upstate new york they could get inside my if they wanted and had it been active they could have created a natural disaster that flooded local community in upstate new york and that is worth the iranians are headed. it is a very serious threat for the government has done a little bit in dating iranian hackers recently put
much more information hast to be put out to identify these threats if we don't we don't know how to counteract these threats. >> it is deeply concerning to me but more importantly this highlights they are non governmental organizations and the u.s. needs to do much better job of information sharing to make sure fed is a private company or critical infrastructure to have the tools to invest in cyber securities and these situations don't have been so to look more broadly at the book i want to preface by saying it will read the'' but where do we go from here? we have a opportunity to put forth a strategy with
information warfare i found it quite compelling in the book he talk about the 2012 study from the joint chiefs of staff that qsr lacks a strategic understanding over a decade there slow to recognize the flow of information in the battle for the narrative of been ineffective tool line the narrative to the goals and desires. you talk about the need for a new information agency the love to hear the conclusions that you draw for this book. >> it has always been a feature of my book to highlight the threats and it paints a dark picture but i try to present the focus of the problems and in this case i present the alliance of the issues and i
mentioned information america pal that could be structured is up for debate period to be a government entity or private sector funded by philanthropist orate a combination of the two supported by intelligence agencies and a diplomatic service to focus on setting up programs. so to present an outline there is room for debate we need to identify these problems and come up with solutions. we have a of a pretty good idea if we don't try to do this we would be in bigger trouble down the road. we did not talk about the russian influence with that
was a new step to say we didn't think about the election as credible infrastructure during the buckled for one of the jobs was to counteract the soviet influence pdf and it is very difficult to do in a polarized political environment and come up with real solutions. i am optimistic they're also looking at some solutions as well. >> i love books that look critically at the challenges and then ideas and recommendations you talk about the number of projects that piqued my interest if i could go through these to get it? summary? what does that look like? >> gold ready the government
is interested basically all open source material to put it together the identify patterns and use that in a constructive way of these falls narrative's. and mention the company that is doing that is a very complicated area that involves the ability to gather the data then make sense of it to find out what's going on. in russia and chinese to develop new language skills i think it is a growth area to use big data. >> another project recommended is the hollywood
project. that is on the north been reissued this sounds interesting. >> five but to promote america the the ideals of freedom and liberty and democracy americans film industry was one reason the people around the world loved america but unfortunately in hollywood today have a narrative that portrays the united states in the worst light possible as almost a cliche anti- corporate or anti-government the bad guy who used to be the good guy i am not saying let them do that but there is the market for patriotic movies that have a different narrative so set up the pro-american film studio.
lino bollenbach has talked about this and i think there is a commercial market. it could be dismissed as propaganda but get over that we have great things to offer a the world reid to promote democracy against the russian fascist model that would be one way to do it. >> echoes to the next point with the adl the hamilton project with the success we have seen in a separate from that house the founding fathers with the importance of information warfare. i think every member of congress should go sea
hamilton and the challenges that the founders face. >> that would be an offshoot of la hollywood project using the broadway arts for this purpose i do think there really does show the you tuesday's been used in we should not apologize for that with that liberal left narrative is evil and all the faults but america is the last best hope in the need to promote that view. >> what is your recommendation for members of congress collects we have
oversight over the defense department what is your recommendation and what we need to go through with information warfare? >> the biggest thing congress could do would help the american people and understand the threats we're facing. if people don't think there is a threat than there is a misunderstanding. congress can be a valuable resource understanding the chinese information warfare. but the culture is we cannot
let anybody know this. things travel at light speed economic get information out when it comes to light so to better inform and educate the american public congress could play a role for all of the best things, as a result of congressional action. congress mandated the pentagon produce an annual report of the chinese military they complain about it but it is one of the most important baselines this could be done with information warfare and cyberthreat. so we could take steps to fix the problem.
the lines of authority the pacific command commander justified the lawyers are controlling things either reach data system or get better lawyers we're not allowed to use these cybercapabilities so clearly cybercommand will be separated to be elevated to head sewn combat end command to figure out a way it will stay that way another year or so. >> i am of believer of the of public-private partnership with silicon valley with the social media project.
how can we work with of private sector specifically and technology companies with research and development? >> silicon valley but i point out it was coopted by the left with the great article talking about, san francisco values. of left it is coopted from those from silicon valley whose instincts could be much more developed but instead killeen's end of libertarian directive for they don't want to interact with the government thinking government has too many problems there needs to be
some reach with the innovation center the challenge is to get them to contribute against foreign information warfare threat so the leaders of silicon valley and social media companies were educated to what i write about in "iwar" it would change their view. >> is there an opportunity to invite members of companies that are the being the way to bring in the best and brightest? there are so many companies that need to understand the importance of cybersecurity and information warfare. is that an opportunity for
this and ministration? to make absolutely that should be the of first step of blue ribbon in commission of experts many times they can be oriented in a way to create policy proposals is the first up with get some of these silicon valley people working together to figure out how to address this problem for quite feel it is of necessity because it will get worse with depressions -- and the russians. it will not stop komis said it will be there in 20 and 2018 did is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed treadway. >> let's turn to a fund
process question with your experience to write this book it was the culmination of your career but how long did it take? >> i began work april 2016 may deadline was august 1st. i relied on my reporting and i took some of these stories with for their interviews and nitride to identify without knowing the government had identified the major players i had a lot of inside information this is the first book i had written since 2008 in back
and then there was not the same level of access to the information as there is no. we have so much information at our fingertips there are incredible resources for example, i found for russian information warfare was done by a polish woman it was a fascinating look how the russians orchestrated to takeover crimea i could get that information to put it together the publisher was good we move to north korea chapter to the front and it came out very well. >> and there are a number of parts of this book can you
talk about your response to the feedback? >> one of the solutions there is the way to change the regime in north korea this crimes against humanity they should not be allowed to torture people my solution is non-governmental organizations get this state wired so we know from china they control technology but we know from the korean people their innovative e enough to find ways around these government controls to break through the information wall.
once this starts flowing it will change rapidly. to use the estranged brother as a tool to put the pressure on him to change the regime. to have that clandestine i assassination position this as he worked -- walked through the airport with that of nerve agent in the airport within minutes it killed him. he was a potential peterson to understand that the family dynasty three generations of dictators. so the solution to target the center of gravity which is the kim family.
>> had the opportunity to use travel to south korea as part of the intelligence committee and the cover of the newspaper the day after the assassination is a significant national security challenge for policy makers to pay attention but the north korean challenges significant and to have a strategy to shed light to ensure the population has access is important to have a potential future for north korea it was eye opening to visit their. we have reached the end. this is bill gertz talking about his book "iwar" war and peace in the information age" a timely book with